Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I can't even begin to fathom why some system would fail to compile
> in such an event: _XOPEN_SOURCE is a feature request, not a
> guarantee that you'll get some level of POSIX.

Yes, but sometimes the system headers are buggy.  Or sometimes they
work just fine with the system compiler, but not so well with GCC.  I
don't know which was the case at the time, but I remember that
compilation failed with _XOPEN_SOURCE and worked without it.

> Do you happen to remember the system?

If I remember correctly, the system was a (by current standards) old
version of Tru64.  The irony.  :-)

> I'd rather always define it, except for the systems where we know it
> fails, rather than just define it where it's safe.

I agree that that would be a better default now that many other
programs unconditionally define _XOPEN_SOURCE.  At the time I only
defined _XOPEN_SOURCE to get rid of compilation warnings under Linux
and Solaris.  After encountering the errors mentioned above, it seemed
safer to only define it where doing so was known not to cause

Reply via email to